Political Correctness Gone Batty in UCC (mod#23)

Pittens wrote: »

In the office where I work the girls regularly talk about sex, and there was a long running ( and, admittedly, trite) blow job joke last week. Of course a normal office is not academia, and has less of the timid souls who lock themselves away from the world in tenured occupations. Also they are Australian.

that is in an office environment involving several parties and clearly you have an open environment. that is not the same as going into a womans office uninvited and bringing up the subject of sex.
my initial reaction was that the woman was overly PC and should grow up but it sounds like the guy is a tool IMO.

i take your point and the woman should not have filed a complaint if she never informed the guy directly he made her uncomfortable. so she is to blame in that respect. it just seems a lot of posts are assuming that she is an overly PC woman who is over-reacting , when the guy could be a prick and her only mistake was not telling him to **** off in the first place.

Lemegeton wrote: »

that is in an office environment involving several parties and clearly you have an open environment. that is not the same as going into a womans office uninvited and bringing up the subject of sex.
my initial reaction was that the woman was overly PC and should grow up but it sounds like the guy is a tool IMO.

I thought this too.
But after reading the report by the investigator, after reading the emails the lecturer sent to the president and the letter from the president to the lecturer and the letter from IFUT, the complaint letter, I think this situation is messed up. Here's my summation (might be wrong but it's just an opinion).
The first charge was that he was acting like a creep with the female lecturer, the hugs, coming into her office, being pervy in general etc... this is the bit that I had my doubts about regarding his innocence (i.e. I would have considered this to be the big issue), but he was cleared of this.
The second charge being the bat bj article, this is absolute nonsense. It's a scientific, peer-reviewed article, he was as the letters go discussing an argument in animal evolution, it'd be like talking about how dolphins are the only other mammal that have sex for pleasure (like humans), no way could this be harassment, it wasn't even meant in a joking fashion according to himself. The bit that gets me is that there was someone else present in the room while he was showing her the article, where are they in all of this? I mean who would act like a creep in front of someone else like this? Also didn't he not show it to ten other people, how would they characterise his behaviour in all of this?
To be fair, I don't care what happens to him but I can't see from the letters where or what he's supposed to be guilty off? It's all very circumstantial. Also, does it not strike anyone as odd that if he was a pervert, creeping on female lecturer, wouldn't he be not reprimanded on this more than the article? He was reprimanded on the one incident, surely if it's sexual harassment he should have been done for the creeping?
The whole situation appears very odd. If he was a total pervert, why would the head of IFUT be writing to the President of UCC (who would want to be seen defending a pervert in such a minor matter that should have been kept in UCC?).

There's something odd about someone who is into fruitbats.

This is very strange. There is obviously more to this than meets the eye but the female lecturers complaint letter is very strange - [paraphrasing] "Dr. Evans likes gambling."?


What does that have to do with Fruit Bat blowies or her complaint? Absolutely nothing. Her letter really tries hard to get him in trouble...